Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present judgment shall dispose of 5 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 5203, 14953 of 2012; 5725, 12748 of 2013 and 20334 of 2017, since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. Facts are being taken from CWP No. 5203 of 2012, Naresh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others.

1 of 31 The petitioners challenge the final list of 47 candidates chosen to be selected for the post of Driver at Sonepat Depot issued on 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-9) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by way of a writ of certiorari. The same is in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Transport Department in the year 2007 for the recruitment of 910 posts of Drivers on contract/daily wage basis. Resultantly, a writ of mandamus is also sought directing the official respondents to select and appoint the petitioners on the posts of Drivers at Sonepat Depot being more meritorious.

"A candidate must (a) be a citizen of India, (b) be of good moral character, (c) be of sound health, (d) not have more than one spouse living, (e) should have passed matric school examination with Hindi as

2 of 31 language subject and should have a TRANSPORT VEHICLE DRIVING LICENSE. The candidate should have at least two years of experience of driving a transport vehicle including a passenger vehicle. Eligibility shall be determined with regard to the last date fixed for the receipt of the application form." It is the case of the petitioners that they being duly qualified had applied for the post within the prescribed period and their driving licenses are appended as Annexures alongwith their experience certificates. Since they belonged to Sonepat district, they submitted applications for the test in the said depot. The DUG test had been conducted on 12.11.2007 to 23.11.2007 and the petitioners had all duly qualified. Thereafter, zig zag test was held from 24.11.2007 to 28.11.2007 and the road test on 29.11.2007 and 30.11.2007. The petitioner having qualified these tests were accordingly called for interview which was held between 09.01.2008 to 11.01.2008. A final list of 48 candidates had been issued for the drivers of the Sonepat Depot on 20.06.2008 (Annexure P-4) and names of the petitioners found mention in the said list at Sr. Nos. 9, 46, 6, 11, 4, 35, 39, 28 and 45 respectively. The said petitioners had thereafter joined duties w.e.f. 24.06.2008 and allotted their numbers.

Respondent nos. 19, 38, 41 and 50 had adopted the written statement filed by the other private respondents and also took the plea that they had earlier also been selected and due to the fault of official respondents not to provide the concerned record, the selection had been set aside qua Sonepat Depot. Therefore, they pleaded the writ petition be dismissed.

In view of the directions issued on 06.01.2015 that the Director Transport would examine the entire matter while going through the record and apprise the Court about the status, affidavit of Chander Parkash, IAS, Director General, State Transport, Haryana, respondent no. 2 was filed dated 21.01.2015 wherein it was clarified that petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 5 were involved in FIRs under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC in various police stations. Explanation was accordingly given of how Anoop Singh was selected in the ESM category in the selection list of 2008. His driving 8 of 31 license subsequently had been found fake and he was dismissed from service on 31.03.2009 by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sonepat. Interview of 103 candidates had been conducted, out of which 48 were selected and their appointments had been quashed in Sanjay Kumar's case (supra). 102 persons were called afresh for interview and Anoop Singh was not called as already having been dismissed due to the fake driving license. 94 candidates appeared for interview before the Selection Committee of Sonepat Depot and the names were forwarded to the Headquarters on 11.07.2011. The recommendations of the Selection Committee of 94 candidates were merged in the state level seniority list of 2008 and thereafter a fresh merit list was prepared at the level of Headquarters by adding the names of 94 candidates.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record as also the relevant record pertaining to the selection of Sonepat depot as also few other depots such as Karnal and Chandigarh.

What is interesting to note is that in the depots pertaining to Karnal and Chandigarh as also the few others, the Selection Committee has awarded the grades in their own hand and each page has been signed by them and thus forwarded to the Head Office. In some of the proceedings the total tabulation of the candidates who have received A+, A, B and C grades have also been recorded and to verify further the total number of candidates interviewed have been tallied with the persons who have been granted these grades. This reflects an insight into the mind of the Selection Committee which is conducting the process in a fair and transparent manner. But in so far as Sonepat depot is concerned, no such proceedings are available on record despite the persistence of this Court. Learned Advocate General with vehemence at his command has contended repeatedly that the list sent by the Sonepat depot is a compilation and even if this plea is accepted,the Court wants to know the foundation and the basis from which such compilation is carried out in print. It is not conceivable that the members of the Selection Committee would have prepared this list at the time of conducting the interviews and what transpired during the interview has to find its